Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Pinchas

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand's vort tonight was about the Haftorah of Parshas Pinchas which is only read when Parshios Matos and Maasei are separate. As this year they are read together, we will not read this Haftorah, but R' Frand felt that the message of the Haftorah was worth discussing.

In the Haftorah we read about Eliyahu and his walking 40 days and nights to Har Horev (aka Har Sinai) where he ascends and stands in the cleft of the rock where Moshe stood when he was receiving the Torah. Thereafter Hashem speak with Eliyahu and he renounces the Jews as complainers. Hashem then tells Eliyahu that he should appoint Elisha to take his place.

R' Frand quoted the Mechilta on Parshas Bo which states that there were three prophets - one who stood for Hashem and the Jewish people, one who stood for Hashem and not the Jewish people and one for the Jewish people and not Hashem. Yirmiayahu stood for Hashem and the Jewish people, while Eliyahu stood for Hashem and not the Jewish people - meaning that he defended Hashem's honor and did not defend the Jews. It was for this reason that Hashem told Eliyahu to appoint Elisha to take his place.

R' Frand next quoted the Radvaz who asked - why did Hashem make Eliyahu walk 40 days and nights without food to get to Har Chorev? He answers that it is because Hashem did not want a prosecutor against the Jewish people. For this reason he wanted Eliyahu to replicate Moshe's ways - by going 40 days without food and going to the site where Moshe received the Torah and specifically where Moshe stood when he received the Torah. Yet after retracing Moshe's steps, Eliyahu stayed as a Kana'i and for that reason Hashem needed him to be replaced.

R' Frand closed the vort by stating that now is not the time for us to be critical of our fellow Jews or those running the land of Israel. For only a prophet truly knows what is correct. But if Eliyahu is chastized by Hashem for constantly finding fault in the Jews, how much more so for us. 

R' Frand said that the Medrash states that the reason that Eliyahu comes to every Bris because he complained that the Jews were Mefer their Bris. By coming to each Bris he can testfiy that the Jews are Shomer their Bris.

This is part of the Avodah of the Three Weeks.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Balak

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In discussing Bila'am's discourse with his donkey, the Torah recounts in Bamidbar 22:28 that the donkey said to Bila'am - מֶה־עָשִׂ֣יתִי לְךָ֔ כִּ֣י הִכִּיתָ֔נִי זֶ֖ה שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים? Rashi explains the choice of the words  שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים, that the donkey was saying to Bila'am how can you curse the Jews who celebrate the  שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים?

But why is the Jews' greatest zechus which is being mentioned? He does not talk about Shabbos, or Taharas Hamishpacha, or fasting on Yom Kippur.

R' Frand observed that during the  שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים, the Jews are all together as they go up to Yerushalaim together and bring the same sacrifices and daven in the same place.

R' Frand also quoted a Gemara in Chaggigah which states that there are three tradesmen who are exempt from being Oleh Regel - a leather worker, a metal worker and collector of manure. The reason for this exemption is that all three work in trades which have foul odors and no one will want to stand near them.

R' Frand also quoted a Yerushalmi in Chaggigah which states that during the times that the Jews would be Oleh Regel, certain laws would be relaxed. There were certain people who were careful to only eat tahor food all year round. As a result they were not allowed to eat with Amei Ha'aretz so that there was no danger the food would become tamei. But during the  שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים, the law was relaxed and they could all eat together.

R' Frand observed that this was why the mitzva of  שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים was mentioned as a zechus - because when the Jews are united they are unbeatable.

R' Frand said a second vort related to the Gemara in Berachos which states that Bila'am had a special power that he knew the precise moment when Hashem would be angry. But why does Hashem need to get angry? The answer is that so there would be Yiras Shamayim in the world. However, Hashem did not get angry at that moment while the Jews were in the Midbar.

R' Frand quoted the Belzer Rebbe who explains that Bila'am knew that no matter what, he would succeed. If he was able to provoke Hashem to allow the Jews to be cursed, then he would be successful. And if Hashem did not get angry, then there would be no Yiras Shamayim. And the plan B would kick in as since the Jews had no Yiras Shamayim, they would stray with the Bnos Midyan and then Hashem would punish them.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Chukas

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand noted the juxtaposition of the events at the beginning of the parsha as it begins with Parah Adumah, followed by the death of Miriam and then Moshe's sin at Mei Merivah. He quoted Rashi which explains that reason that Miriam's death follows the Parah Adumah is to teach that just as a Karban atones, so does the death of a Tzaddik. 

After the death of Miriam there is no water as the Be'er of Miriam ceased to give water and after Moshe was told to speak to the rock he hit it and was punished.

R' Frand noted that there are 16 different explanations of what Moshe did wrong. He recalled that when he was in 9th grade each student was given the task to discuss one of the explanations (he was given R' Yosef Albo).

However this year R' Frand said that he saw a sefer from R' Immanuel Bernstein which quoted a Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel which satisfied him in explaining the sin of Mei Merivah.

R' Frand prefaced the explanation by discussing the questions which arise when reading the story. The first is why did he hit the rock instead of speaking to it? The second question is how could Moshe not follow Hashem's instruction? The third question is why did Hashem ask Moshe to take his Mateh if his job was to speak to the rock, Hashem was not out to confuse Moshe? The fourth question is based on Hashem telling Moshe and Aharon in Bamidbar 20:12 -  יַ֚עַן לֹא־הֶֽאֱמַנְתֶּ֣ם בִּ֔י לְהַ֨קְדִּישֵׁ֔נִי לְעֵינֵ֖י בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל . Why are they told that they are being punished for not believing in Hashem?

R' Frand then delved into the Targum which states on 20:14 that Moshe was told to take the Mateh with Aharon and to go to the rock and make it swear with the Shem Hameforash that it will give water. And if the rock did not give water, then hit it to make the water come out.

R' Frand observed that Hashem had a plan A and a plan B. If the rock would not give water based on the swear, then you should use the stick.

So why did Moshe not listen? R' Frand tracked back to the Rashi and quoted Chazal which explain that the death of a Tzaddik only atones if the death causes introspection and people want to change as a result. But if people don't change, there is no atonement.

R' Frand observed that when Miriam died there is no Hesped and no crying. Instead immediately thereafter the people start arguing with Moshe. As opposed to when Aharon died and all the Jews cried and similarly when Moshe died at the end of the Torah - the Jews cried.

R' Frand opined that Moshe must have thought - you are complaining about water now, right after my sister Miriam died and I am an aveil? These people must not be on a high level as his sister died and they just want to complain about water. Moshe then says to himself, Hashem wanted me to speak to the rock (as observed by Rashi) as they will draw Mussar that if I speak to a rock it will listen, surely we should listen. But this will be lost on them and if I speak to the rock and they are not worthy of having the water come out, there will be a Chillul Hashem when nothing happens. So I am going to go straight to plan B and hit the rock, because you are rebellious people.

Hashem then says to Moshe - you jumped to conclusions. There are two million people who need water and their kids are crying and their animals are braying. They probably did feel bad about Miriam's death, but this is their priority because they need water. They could make the Hesped at the Shloshim.

Hashem then says to Moshe - you are being punished because I have a higher opinion of the Jews than you do and you did not believe Me. 

This explains the connection between Miriam's death and Parah Adumah, why he was told to take the Mateh, how he could make that mistake and why he was told he was being punished for not believing in Hashem.

R' Frand said that R' Bernstein observes that Aharon died as a result of this event, but what did Aharon do wrong? He was a bystander. He explains that Aharon as an Ohev Shalom and Rodef Shalom should have told Moshe - you are judging them too sharply. Had Aharon intervened and said that he should give them a break because they were all thirsty, then Moshe might not have jumped to plan B.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Shelach

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand began the vort by quoting the famous Rashi which answers the question of why the story of the Meraglim follows the story of Miriam being afflicted with Tzaraas. Rashi answers that the Meraglim who saw that Miriam was punished for speaking Lashon Hara about Moshe but did not derive any Mussar from it and then spoke Lashon Hara about the land of Israel.

R' Frand quoted R' Elya Boruch Finkel who cited a Gemara in Erchin which observes how great a sin Lashon Hara is, in that the Meraglin were punished for Lashon Hara about trees and stones, how much more so for saying Lashon Hara about a person.

R' Elya Boruch asked - if the Kal V'Chomer is that we see how much more problematic it is to say Lashon Hara about a person based on the punishment for speaking Lashon Hara about an inanimate object, then why should the Meraglim have drawn Mussar from Miriam speaking about Moshe?

R' Frand quoted the Rambam in Hilchos Tum'as Tzaraas which states that a person should consider that Miriam who put her life in danger to save Moshe and was his older sister and did not speak negatively about him (she only asked why he needed to separate from his wife) and the Torah goes out of its way to say that Moshe was an Anav and likely was not hurt by her words, yet still she was punished. Kal V'Chomer is we speak negatively about someone else.

R' Frand quoted R' Elya Boruch as stating that the insertion of the fact that Moshe was an Anav in the middle of this story (as opposed to at the end of the Torah when Moshe died) demonstrates that Moshe was like the trees and the stone - he was so unaffected as to be like an inanimate object. But even with all that, Miriam was punished for speaking about him. This is the Mussar that the Meraglim should have taken.

R' Frand closed the vort by quoting R' Weinberg who observes that Lashon Hara only ends with the mouth - but it begins with the eye. If someone observes a circumstance and can draw one of many conclusions, and then speaks negatively about what he saw, it is because his eye led him to draw that conclusion. Miriam saw Moshe and thought - why is Moshe doing this, he is no different than Aharon or me as we are all prophets. But that was her mistake - she saw Moshe and decided that he was no different than anyone else. This is why the Torah needed to insert that Moshe was an Anav "מְאֹ֑ד מִכֹּל֙ הָאָדָ֔ם" - to show that he was different.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Behaalosecha

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand noted that Bamidbar 10:11 notes that the Jews left Har Sinai in the second year on the twentieth day of the second month.  Yet, the Torah's discussion of the actual leaving takes place in 10:35 which contains the pasuk said for every Krias HaTorah - וַיְהִ֛י בִּנְסֹ֥עַ הָֽאָרֹ֖ן. 

As these pesukim are surrounded by upside down Nuns, Rashi explains that Bamidbar 10:35 does not actually "belong" where it is found, as this should have been mentioned in Parshas Bamidbar. R' Frand quoted the Rabbeinu Bachya who points out that these pesukim are found 50 parshios after where they should be (with 50 being the gematria for Nun).

Rashi quotes the Gemara in Shabbos which states that the pesukim are found here as they separate between two sets of troubles.

The Gemara in Shabbos elaborates that the first set of troubles was the Jews leaving Har Sinai and the second was the Jews complaining about food. Tosafos explains that the problem with the Jews leaving Har Sinai was that the Jews ran away, like a child running from the last day of school.

But why are there upside down Nuns?

R' Frand quoted the sefer Maskil L'Dovid who explains that the Nun is a sign of trouble which is why it is not mentioned in Ashrei - it connotes falling. 

The Yalkut Me'am Loez provides the last piece of the puzzle, explaining that the Jews reached their pinnacle when they invoked the two Nuns - Na'aseh V'Nishma. But when they ran away from Har Sinai, they overturned their great moment and thus the Nuns are upside down.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Thoughts on Shavuous

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on Shavuous this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand began the vort by noting that the Jews did not say Na'aseh V'Nishma in Parshas Yisro. Instead, the words appear in Parshas Mishpatim (Shemos 24:7) which states וַיִּקַּח֙ סֵ֣פֶר הַבְּרִ֔ית וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּאָזְנֵ֣י הָעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע.

But why is the statement found in Mishpatim? Rashi states that the Jews said it at Har Sinai, on the 4th of Sivan and relies on the concept of Ein Mukdam U'M'uachar B'Torah. However the Ramban and Ibn Ezra disagree and state that the Jews said it on the 7th or 8th of Sivan and it was separate from Matan Torah.

R' Frand next made reference to Shemos 24:9-10 which discusses Moshe, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and the 70 Zekeinim going up and viewing the Kisei HaKavod. R' Frand first quoted the Rashi on Shemos 24:10  וְתַ֣חַת רַגְלָ֗יו כְּמַֽעֲשֵׂה֙ לִבְנַ֣ת הַסַּפִּ֔יר וּכְעֶ֥צֶם הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם לָטֹֽהַר , explaining that the reason Hashem had brickwork under the Kisei HaKavod was to remind Him of the enslavement in Egypt and that Hashem had great simcha when the Jews left Egypt.

R' Frand observed that Hashem did not need a reminder as He does not forget. Instead, the image was for Moshe and Aharon and the others to see that Hashem was Noseh B'Ol Im Chavero. 

But why was that needed at the time that the Jews received the Torah? In fact, the person that Moshe perceives Hashem at the Sneh, Rashi explains that Hashem chose to appear in the Sneh and not a tree or larger edifice, because Hashem wanted to show that He was with the Jews during their enslavement in Egypt.

R' Frand quoted R' Mattisyahu Solomon Ztl who said that the reason that this was referenced here was to show that part of being able to receive the Torah is to be able to sympathize with other people's troubles. Indeed, Pirkei Avos lists this as one of the 48 qualities needed to learn Torah, yet this has nothing to do with intellectual ability.

R' Frand quoted three explanations of why this is mentioned in Pirkei Avos. The Alter M'Kelem says that a person with a Nefesh Yafeh can acquire Torah and one can achieve that by being Noseh B'Ol. The Maharal explains that the Torah was given to the Clal and therefore to acquire Torah a person must be empathetic to the needs of others. Lastly, R' Chaim Volozhin that in order to acquire Torah you need to be able to really listen to your Chavrusa.

R' Frand closed the vort by noting that the simcha that Hashem showed is also part of being Noseh B'Ol. R' Frand quoted R' Motel Pogramanski who stated that if a person does not feel for others he is not a mench. But to truly join in another person's simcha you need to be a Malach.

R' Frand gave the mashal of two neighbors. One has many children who are looking for shidduchim, while the other has children who quickly find their mates. If the neighbor with single children can truly dance and rejoice with his friend despite his own children being single, he demonstrates his ability to be Noseh B'Ol even at a simcha.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!